Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 90

Thread: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

  1. #1
    Cor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leiden, The Netherlands
    Posts
    764

    210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    So I have these 2 lenses in 210 mm for 4*5:

    A f5.6 210 mm Symmar (chrome on the outside), single coated, in an older Synchro Compur (old shutter speed range), single coated

    A f9 G-Claron 210 mm mounted in a Polaroid Copal 1, I guess single coated.

    The Claron is about half the weight of the Symmar, but more than a stop slower.

    When enlarging negatives to 40*50 cm (most frequent size) or 50*60 (max in my tiny darkroom) would there be discernible differences (yes I will run that test.. ..) ?


    Best,

    Cor

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Close up, you might see a tiny difference in favor of the G-Claron. They are both Plasmats.
    One man's Mede is another man's Persian.

  3. #3
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    I don't know the exact vintage of your G-Claron, but generally they are going to be
    optically superior to the Symmar.

  4. #4
    IanG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Aegean (Turkey & UK)
    Posts
    4,122

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    I don't know the exact vintage of your G-Claron, but generally they are going to be
    optically superior to the Symmar.
    Other way around. The G Claron will only be superior for flat field copy work which they are optimised for. These lenses are designed for close distances not infinity.

    Ian

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Horses for courses. Use the G-Claron when you're packing in since it's lighter. Use the Symmar when light is scarce since it will be easier to focus.
    You've got it made in the shade, pal!
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  6. #6
    dave_whatever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sheffield, UK.
    Posts
    600

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    G clarons are supposed to be optimised for closeup, but this doesn't mean they will be less sharp that other lenses at non-macro distances. I know that of my landscape shots at 150mm I can't tell from the film if I used my g claron or symmar-s. I suspect the same is true of the 210mm.

  7. #7
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Ian - G-Clarons are indeed better for closeups than general-purpose faster plastmats
    like the Symmar S, but that doesn't mean they're inferior at infinity. At any typical
    working aperture they're even better! I've used each of these categories of lens for
    years on end for all kinds of things, and don't miss the bigger heavier plastmats at all.

  8. #8
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    The G-clarons look like good deals and much good has been said about them. I presume they are mostly used for in-focus f64 style shooting.

    I haven't owned one, but based on my research, many of them have very shapely (star) irises. This would not be a problem for when everything is in focus, but I'd be personally wary of that for thin-DOF use.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    f/22 at infinity yields super sharp results on the 240mm and 305mm, I can say from experience. Stephen Shore did, according to him, 95% of his 8x10 work with a 305 G-Claron.

    That said the shorter ones seem to me to have worse rectilinear correction than similar lengths of other designs for mid-distance objects in the corners of the frame or at the extremes of the image circle.

  10. #10
    IanG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Aegean (Turkey & UK)
    Posts
    4,122

    Re: 210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

    Quote Originally Posted by dave_whatever View Post
    G clarons are supposed to be optimised for closeup, but this doesn't mean they will be less sharp that other lenses at non-macro distances. I know that of my landscape shots at 150mm I can't tell from the film if I used my g claron or symmar-s. I suspect the same is true of the 210mm.

    Macro lenses aren't as critically sharp at Infinity as a standard lens and with process/repro lenses there can be issues of sdistortion when used at longer distances compared to a Symmar/Sironar etc.

    Some G Claron's were spaced to give better results at Infinity but Scneider never actually recommended them, rather they stated they could be used for longer distances.

    Another issue Schneider raise is they can vignette wider than f16 when used at infinity and should be used at f22 or smaller, the angle of view and image circle is much less than a Symmar at infinity.

    Ian

Similar Threads

  1. Lens image circle to cover 4x10
    By Vui Shin Chong in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-Dec-2005, 08:18
  2. Cheap lenses for 5x7? 215mm Caltar?
    By John Kasaian in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16-Aug-2005, 19:12
  3. super symmar 210 HM for 8x10
    By giancatarina in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2005, 19:17

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •